1
|
Liu YL, Gordhandas S, Arora K, Rios-Doria E, Cadoo KA, Catchings A, Maio A, Kemel Y, Sheehan M, Salo-Mullen E, Zhou Q, Iasonos A, Carrot-Zhang J, Manning-Geist B, Sia TY, Selenica P, Vanderbilt C, Misyura M, Latham A, Bandlamudi C, Berger MF, Hamilton JG, Makker V, Abu-Rustum NR, Ellenson LH, Offit K, Mandelker DL, Stadler Z, Weigelt B, Aghajanian C, Brown C. Pathogenic germline variants in patients with endometrial cancer of diverse ancestry. Cancer 2024; 130:576-587. [PMID: 37886874 PMCID: PMC10922155 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.35071] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2023] [Revised: 08/04/2023] [Accepted: 08/10/2023] [Indexed: 10/28/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Racial disparities in outcomes exist in endometrial cancer (EC). The contribution of ancestry-based variations in germline pathogenic variants (gPVs) is unknown. METHODS Germline assessment of ≥76 cancer predisposition genes was performed in patients with EC undergoing tumor-normal Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets sequencing from January 1, 2015 through June 30, 2021. Self-reported race/ethnicity and Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry data classified patients into groups. Genetic ancestry was inferred from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets. Rates of gPV and genetic counseling were compared by ancestry. RESULTS Among 1625 patients with EC, 216 (13%) had gPVs; 15 had >1 gPV. Rates of gPV varied by self-reported ancestry (Ashkenazi Jewish, 40/202 [20%]; Asian, 15/124 [12%]; Black/African American (AA), 12/171 [7.0%]; Hispanic, 15/124 [12%]; non-Hispanic (NH) White, 129/927 [14%]; missing, 5/77 [6.5%]; p = .009], with similar findings by genetic ancestry (p < .001). We observed a lower likelihood of gPVs in patients of Black/AA (odds ratio [OR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.81) and African (AFR) ancestry (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18-0.85) and a higher likelihood in patients of Ashkenazi Jewish genetic ancestry (OR, 1.62; 95% CI; 1.11-2.34) compared with patients of non-Hispanic White/European ancestry, even after adjustment for age and molecular subtype. Somatic landscape influenced gPVs with lower rates of microsatellite instability-high tumors in patients of Black/AA and AFR ancestry. Among those with newly identified gPVs (n = 114), 102 (89%) were seen for genetic counseling, with lowest rates among Black/AA (75%) and AFR patients (67%). CONCLUSIONS In those with EC, gPV and genetic counseling varied by ancestry, with lowest rates among Black/AA and AFR patients, potentially contributing to disparities in outcomes given implications for treatment and cancer prevention. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY Black women with endometrial cancer do worse than White women, and there are many reasons for this disparity. Certain genetic changes from birth (mutations) can increase the risk of cancer, and it is unknown if rates of these changes are different between different ancestry groups. Genetic mutations in 1625 diverse women with endometrial cancer were studied and the lowest rates of mutations and genetic counseling were found in Black and African ancestry women. This could affect their treatment options as well as their families and may make disparities worse.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ying L Liu
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
- Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
| | - Sushmita Gordhandas
- Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Kanika Arora
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Eric Rios-Doria
- Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Karen A Cadoo
- St. James's Hospital, Trinity St. James's Cancer Institute, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Amanda Catchings
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Anna Maio
- Sloan Kettering Institute, New York, New York, USA
| | - Yelena Kemel
- Sloan Kettering Institute, New York, New York, USA
| | - Margaret Sheehan
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Erin Salo-Mullen
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Qin Zhou
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Alexia Iasonos
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Jian Carrot-Zhang
- Department of Computational Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Beryl Manning-Geist
- Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Tiffany Y Sia
- Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Pier Selenica
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Chad Vanderbilt
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Maksym Misyura
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Alicia Latham
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
- Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
| | - Chaitanya Bandlamudi
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Michael F Berger
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Jada G Hamilton
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
- Department of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
| | - Vicky Makker
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
- Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
| | - Nadeem R Abu-Rustum
- Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
| | - Lora H Ellenson
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Kenneth Offit
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
- Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
| | - Diana L Mandelker
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Zsofia Stadler
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
- Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
| | - Britta Weigelt
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Carol Aghajanian
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
- Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
| | - Carol Brown
- Gynecology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kage H, Shinozaki-Ushiku A, Ishigaki K, Sato Y, Tanabe M, Tanaka S, Tanikawa M, Watanabe K, Kato S, Akagi K, Uchino K, Mitani K, Takahashi S, Miura Y, Ikeda S, Kojima Y, Watanabe K, Mochizuki H, Yamaguchi H, Kawazoe Y, Kashiwabara K, Kohsaka S, Tatsuno K, Ushiku T, Ohe K, Yatomi Y, Seto Y, Aburatani H, Mano H, Miyagawa K, Oda K. Clinical utility of Todai OncoPanel in the setting of approved comprehensive cancer genomic profiling tests in Japan. Cancer Sci 2023; 114:1710-1717. [PMID: 36601953 PMCID: PMC10067384 DOI: 10.1111/cas.15717] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2022] [Revised: 11/22/2022] [Accepted: 12/20/2022] [Indexed: 01/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Comprehensive cancer genome profiling (CGP) has been nationally reimbursed in Japan since June 2019. Less than 10% of the patients have been reported to undergo recommended treatment. Todai OncoPanel (TOP) is a dual DNA-RNA panel as well as a paired tumor-normal matched test. Two hundred patients underwent TOP as part of Advanced Medical Care B with approval from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare between September 2018 and December 2019. Tests were carried out in patients with cancers without standard treatment or when patients had already undergone standard treatment. Data from DNA and RNA panels were analyzed in 198 and 191 patients, respectively. The percentage of patients who were given therapeutic or diagnostic recommendations was 61% (120/198). One hundred and four samples (53%) harbored gene alterations that were detected with the DNA panel and had potential treatment implications, and 14 samples (7%) had a high tumor mutational burden. Twenty-two samples (11.1%) harbored 30 fusion transcripts or MET exon 14 skipping that were detected by the RNA panel. Of those 30 transcripts, 6 had treatment implications and 4 had diagnostic implications. Thirteen patients (7%) were found to have pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants and genetic counseling was recommended. Overall, 12 patients (6%) received recommended treatment. In summary, patients benefited from both TOP DNA and RNA panels while following the same indication as the approved CGP tests. (UMIN000033647).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hidenori Kage
- Next-Generation Precision Medicine Development Laboratory, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.,Department of Respiratory Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Aya Shinozaki-Ushiku
- Division of Integrative Genomics, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.,Department of Pathology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kazunaga Ishigaki
- Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.,Department of Chemotherapy, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yusuke Sato
- Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Masahiko Tanabe
- Department of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Shota Tanaka
- Department of Neurosurgery, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Michihiro Tanikawa
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.,Department of Gynecology, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center Komagome Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kousuke Watanabe
- Department of Respiratory Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.,Department of Clinical Laboratory, The University Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Shingo Kato
- Department of Clinical Cancer Genomics, Yokohama City University Hospital, Kanagawa, Japan
| | - Kiwamu Akagi
- Department of Molecular Diagnosis and Cancer Prevention, Saitama Cancer Center, Saitama, Japan
| | - Keita Uchino
- Department of Medical Oncology, NTT Medical Center Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kinuko Mitani
- Department of Hematology and Oncology, Dokkyo Medical University, Tochigi, Japan
| | - Shunji Takahashi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yuji Miura
- Department of Medical Oncology and Clinical Genetics Center, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.,Clinical Genetics Center, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Sadakatsu Ikeda
- Department of Precision Cancer Medicine, Tokyo Medical and Dental University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yasushi Kojima
- Department of Gastroenterology, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kiyotaka Watanabe
- Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Teikyo University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hitoshi Mochizuki
- Genome Analysis Center, Yamanashi Prefectural Central Hospital, Yamanashi, Japan
| | - Hironori Yamaguchi
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Jichi Medical University Hospital, Tochigi, Japan
| | - Yoshimasa Kawazoe
- Department of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.,Department of Healthcare Information Management, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kosuke Kashiwabara
- Clinical Research Promotion Center, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Shinji Kohsaka
- Division of Cellular Signaling, National Cancer Center Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kenji Tatsuno
- Genome Science and Medicine Laboratory, RCAST, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Tetsuo Ushiku
- Department of Pathology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kazuhiko Ohe
- Department of Healthcare Information Management, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yutaka Yatomi
- Department of Clinical Laboratory, The University Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yasuyuki Seto
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hiroyuki Aburatani
- Genome Science and Medicine Laboratory, RCAST, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hiroyuki Mano
- Division of Cellular Signaling, National Cancer Center Research Institute, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kiyoshi Miyagawa
- Laboratory of Molecular Radiology, Center for Disease Biology and Integrative Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Katsutoshi Oda
- Division of Integrative Genomics, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.,Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Higashigawa S, Matsubayashi H, Kiyozumi Y, Kado N, Nishimura S, Oishi T, Sugino T, Fushiki K, Shirasu H, Yasui H, Mamesaya N, Fukuzaki N, Kunitomo K, Horiuchi Y, Kenmotsu H, Serizawa M. Present status of germline findings in precision medicine for Japanese cancer patients: issues in the current system. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2022; 52:599-608. [PMID: 35411369 DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyac046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2021] [Revised: 12/11/2021] [Accepted: 03/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Since 2019, precision cancer medicine has been covered by national insurance in Japan; however, to date, germline findings have not been fully reported. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current status and raise a problem of germline finding analysis and disclosure in Japanese precision cancer medicine. METHODS Germline findings of 52 genes were examined in 296 cases with advanced cancer by a case series study. RESULTS Six (2.0%) cases were examined by the Oncoguide™ NCC Oncopanel with germline testing, but no germline findings were reported. The remaining 290 (98.0%) cases were analyzed by FoundationOne® CDx (tumor-only testing), which recognized 404 pathogenic variants; those of BRCA1/2 were recognized in 16 (5.5%) tumors. Our institutional algorithm suggested 39 candidate germline findings in 34 cases, while the public algorithm listed at least 91 candidate germline findings. Four germline findings had been previously identified (BRCA1: 3 and ATM: 1). Nine of 30 cases with candidate germline findings excluding these known germline findings refused or deferred germline testing. Only 4 of 16 cases that received counseling underwent germline testing, and those 4 revealed 3 germline findings (BRCA2, CDK4 and RAD51C); in total, 8 (2.7%) germline findings were revealed. Reasons for refusing genetic counseling and/or germline testing included extra hospital visits, added expense for germline testing due to limited national insurance coverage, poor patient physical condition and no known family members associated with the possible germline finding. CONCLUSIONS In current Japanese precision cancer medicine, only a small fraction of the patients undergoes germline testing and demonstrated germline finding. The current results suggested a need for earlier indications for precision cancer medicine, broader insurance coverage and more efficient germline finding prediction algorithms, to increase the number of germline testings and to improve the following managements.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Yasue Horiuchi
- Division of Genetic Medicine Promotion.,Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Medical Science, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Masakuni Serizawa
- Clinical Research Center, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Nagaizumi-cho, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka, Japan
| |
Collapse
|